Serious Charge Against a Minister

Extraordinary Evidence

At the Doncaster West Riding Police-court, on Saturday, the Rev. Alex. D. Gray, Independent Minister, Rillington, and formerly of Mexborough, was summoned to show cause why he should not contribute towards the maintenance of the illegitimate child of Arabella Jennings, of Mexborough, he being alleged to be the father of it.

Mr. Hall appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Shirley for the defendant. It was stated that although Mr. Gray was in town he did not care to appear in court.

Mr. Hall, in opening the case, said the defendant was a married man, and the complainant was only a child—just turned fifteen years. Her father was a grocer and draper at Mexborough, and at the time the girl was seduced the defendant was acting as the minister at the Congregational Chapel at Mexborough. He paid her considerable attentions, and at the time she was ill visited her at her parents’ house. It was not suspected, however, that there was anything between the two except what was proper between a minister and one of his flock.

In appearance she was quite a girl, but from the manner in which she gave her evidence it was apparent she was not over shy. She stated she was an only child, and was fifteen years old last June. Her child was born on Christmas Day, and Alex. D. Gray, who used to be the Independent Minister at Mexborough, was the father of it.

She first met the defendant at the Bible class. In the first or second week of March last, as she was going to see Miss Birks, one night between seven and eight o’clock, she met the defendant near Station-road, Mexborough. He told her he had something particular to say to her, and as he was going down the Station-road they might as well walk a little. When they got to the station they went down some steps to what is known as the Lovers’ Walk, on the banks of the river, and it was there that he first led her astray.

She told him she would tell her mother, but he persuaded her not to do so. About a week after this, as she was going to Miss Duke’s, the dressmaker, she met him again, about three hundred yards from the church school. He then persuaded her to go into a grass field. After this she told the defendant she was very ill, but he told her she would be all right.

Before he left Mexborough he told her he would always stick to her while he had a bit of breath left in him. He said he was going to Rillington, but he would write to her, addressing his letters to the Post-office, Swinton, “till called for.”

He did not write, but in the middle of July he came to her father’s house. While he was alone with her he asked how she was. She told him she was very ill, and that she had been in a strange way. He told her she would be all right at Christmas. He also said he was to try to persuade her mother to take her away to the seaside. If they went to Scarborough he would go and see her every other day, but if they went to Morecambe he could not see her so often. He added he would write to her to the Swinton Post-office the first of the following month.

On the 1st of August she received a letter, which she knew to be in the defendant’s handwriting.

Mr. Thorley then rose and was questioning the witness as to her knowledge of defendant’s writing, when Mr. Hall said he would prove that the defendant admitted the letters. He then called Mr. Bingham, who stated there had been an inquiry at the Queen-street Chapel, Sheffield, when the letters now produced were placed before the defendant, and he then admitted that he had written them.

The complainant recalled, identified the letter received on 1st August. It was as follows:

“My dear Arabella,—I wish I were with you as you receive this note. I often think of you, and greatly desire to be near you. Did you go with the trip on Monday? I trust that you are better, for it would grieve me exceedingly to hear of your losing your nice red cheeks, especially when I was not near you to romp with you to bring them back.

I expect to be in Doncaster on the 31st Aug., by the train which arrives from here about 10.25. Shall I look out for you? I will expect to see you, so you need not write for the first of next month. If you write to Malton before then send a Mexboro’ Times to Rillington at the same time. Accept a thousand kisses and love from me. Ever the same.”
[The signature torn off.]

The complainant stated she replied to the letter, and next read the following:

“My darling,—my mother is here from Glasgow, and we have been to Scarborough to-day; you will therefore kindly excuse me for not writing a long letter. I will write you a long letter next Thursday at Swinton. Be assured of my fondest love. Your affectionate lover.—P.S.—Write to me, my dearest, and send a Mexborough Times the day before.”

The complainant continued, saying the third letter was sent to the post-office, Conisborough, because the defendant did not want to write again to Swinton. Before this came, however, she had told her mother what was the matter with her. This letter was as follows:

“Your letter astonishes me, I wrote to Conisborough, and went to Doncaster to meet you. Did you not know that I promised to write to Swinton? I want to see you. Send a letter to Malton for Tuesday, telling me where, when, and at what hour I can see you. Let it be the middle of the day.”
After this her father received the following letters:—

“Rillington, York, October 20, 1877.
Sir,—Mrs. Stewart informs me that your daughter is with child, and that you accuse me of being the cause of it. I also understand that you have threatened to run a sword through me. I demand of you an explanation of your conduct; else I will pass the affair to a solicitor.
A. D. Gray.”

“New Malton, November 10, 1877.
Sir,—I am instructed by the Rev. A. D. Gray, of Rillington, to demand from you an immediate explanation and full and ample apology for the gross and wicked slander you have originated affecting his character, and which slander you have repeated to Dr. Falding, of the Rotherham College, and who has caused a communication to be made to Mr. Gray on the subject. The latter’s answer to the charge is that it is a gross and wilful fabrication, without one iota of truth to support it, and that unless the apology now asked is given within three days from this date he will forthwith commence an action or actions against both or one of you.—Mr. Jennings has already ignored Mr. Gray’s written demand for an explanation; should a similar course be adopted with respect to this letter, he (Mr. Gray) would adopt proceedings on Wednesday next.
Hugh W. Pears.”

To Mr. Joshua Jennings and Mr. Bingham.

Replying to Mr. Shirley, the complainant said she knew the defendant was a married man.

The complainant’s mother was next examined, after which Mr. Shirley argued that according to the time the complainant was confined the defendant could not be the father of the child.

Mr. Bower, the presiding magistrate, said:
“We are satisfied about the time; if you have anything else to say on any other point.”

Mr. Shirley replied: “Oh no, I cannot do that.”

The Bench immediately made an order for 5s. per week, with advocate’s fee.

Notice of appeal was given.